Rust updates

[foobar]

On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 07:36:26 UTC, Marcel wrote:
>> Rust designers seems to love really short keywords, this is in 
>> my opinion a bit silly. On the other hand in D you have 
>> keywords like "immutable" that are rather long to type. So I 
>> prefer a mid way between those two.
>
> They aren't silly, they're consistent. We have int, char, auto,
> they have fn, var, and val which are common these days, why not
> mut, pub, and priv? What is silly are the objections, such as
> someone saying that it's like limiting the length of 
> identifiers.
> It's obviously NOTHING like that.
>
>> Rust supports several types of pointers. The simplest is the 
>> unsafe pointer, written *T, which is a completely unchecked 
>> pointer type only used in unsafe code (and thus, in typical 
>> Rust code, very rarely).
>
> It's &T, and it has nothing to do with unsafety.

Those are silly as well. Why be consistent with the wrong choice?
I really don't want to see pubs scattered around my code as my 
manager used to say - don't drink and code.

I really like Rust's semantics and the way it progresses but 
there is really no valid nor sane argument for an APL inspired 
syntax. Syntax is meant for human consumption and should be 
designed accordingly. That's one of the main goals of a 
programming language, otherwise we all would just program 
straight in assembly. After all, assembly op codes and numeric 
addresses are much shorter than the equivalent human readable 
identifiers and function names.